http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4594
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 06:40 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
Please attach a copy of your spamd log, complete with time stamps, around the
time it happens.
Sorry, I didn't read the bug
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4347
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 09:30 ---
+1 on 3574.
The DIGEST_MULTIPLE case:
meta DIGEST_MULTIPLE RAZOR2_CHECK + DCC_CHECK + PYZOR_CHECK 1
where RAZOR2_CHECK, DCC_CHECK, PYZOR_CHECK could
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4980
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes |needs 1
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4970
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4958
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 09:35 ---
hmm, that sounds pretty much like a no to me ;)
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3563
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 09:39 ---
what kind of db format is this?
I thought Berkeley DB files could deal with this
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4678
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 09:42 ---
Era -- you could always run a mass-check,
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck . that way the data stays
there, but the rules are run on it
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4953
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3563
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 13:41 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
what kind of db format is this?
I thought Berkeley DB files could deal with this
It's BerkeleyDB.
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4594
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 14:08 ---
On 3 pretty loaded servers during prime spam crunching time, you could
anticipate this to happen within an hour on one of them. After the first one
goes,
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 14:14 ---
btw, this would be an ideal way to allow people to work on alternative
backends for rule types, too; for example, code which used the trie-optimized
regexp
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4347
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 14:51 ---
Well, the obvious solution would seem to be to add 'tflags plugin' for plugin
rules, allow this with the rule name (obviously) undefined; that is, you DO
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4966
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|BSMTP broken - can lose mail|[review] BSMTP broken - can
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4906
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:26 ---
I think this may be fixed in svn trunk.
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4908
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4785
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4777
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:35 ---
Michael: mind if I take a look at applying this to trunk?
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4777
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:37 ---
Go ahead
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4896
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4893
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4909
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:41 ---
we ran into this before; I would suggest renaming them, even though it causes
trouble for users. :(
it really is not good if a message containing a
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4939
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:44 ---
that will only happen if --vpopmail is used and $vpopdir/bin/valias username
returns output that does not look like
foo - /path/to/Maildir/something
should
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4899
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:47 ---
Well, Windows doesn't handle single-quoted file paths. At least not Windows XP
or Server 2003. So calling a program single-quoted always returns bad command
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 15:55 ---
I'm working up a slightly different approach to this. Its possible too bold,
but it really opens up the possibilities for what you're able to do.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #3356 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
Summary: urirhssub only supports A records and bitmasks, docs
suggest it should support more
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.1.3
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 16:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=3576)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3576action=view)
Test mail
--- You are receiving this
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 16:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=3577)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3577action=view)
rulefile for testing rhssub with A records
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 16:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=3578)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3578action=view)
rulefile for testing rhssub with TXT records
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 16:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=3579)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3579action=view)
test results from the A record case.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 16:30 ---
Please separate my three tests per file into six separate tests - the docs
say the zones should be identical and in those files they aren't. For me, the
31 matches
Mail list logo
